Inheritable genetic modification (IGM, also called germline engineering) means changing the genes passed on to future generations. The genetic changes would be made in eggs, sperm or early embryos; modified genes would appear not only in the person who developed from that gamete or embryo, but also in all succeeding generations. IGM has not been tried in humans. It would be by far the most consequential type of genetic modification as it would open the door to irreversibly altering the human species.

Human Gene Editing: A Timeline of CRISPR Cover StoriesWith recent gene editing tools, a number of high-profile media are featuring CRISPR on their covers and front pages. We gather highlights since early 2015, along with opinion polls, TV shows, and editorial board statements.

Review of Blame: A Novelby Abby Lippman, Biopolitical Times guest contributorNovember 28th, 2016Blame is especially important for those unfamiliar with the range of ethical, social, legal, and political issues raised by applications of what is learned in a lab. While a work of fiction, it is definitely not science-fiction

3-Person IVF: A Resource PageLearn more about controversial research on "3-person IVF": how it works, where the research is taking place, the social and ethical implications, and how you can get involved in the discussion.

World Bioethics Day: Human Dignity and Human Rightsby Leah Lowthorp, Biopolitical TimesOctober 19th, 2016October 19 marks the first such international event sponsored by the UNESCO Chair in Bioethics. This year's theme of Human Dignity and Human Rights will be celebrated in 55 countries worldwide.

Wrong Steps: The First One From Threeby Pete Shanks, Deccan ChronicleOctober 2nd, 2016Gene-editing technology is advancing rapidly. What if we come to a consensus about what should not be allowed...and then some renegade scientists, convinced that they know best, just go ahead and do it?

Can CRISPR–Cas9 Boost Intelligence?by Jim Kozubek, Scientific AmericanSeptember 23rd, 2016There are no superior genes, only genes that provide advantages with a tradeoff for other disadvantages. But some argue that there is a duty to manipulate the genetic code of future children.

Are Swedish Designer Babies Coming Soon?by Eric Niiler, SeekerSeptember 23rd, 2016"What are the oversight and controls to prevent this technology from being misused and go to a stage that, for now, the scientific community has agreed is a no-go?"

Puffing Cryonics in New Scientist?by Pete Shanks, Biopolitical TimesJuly 13th, 2016New Scientist is a popular science magazine that sometimes prioritizes popularity over science.

Two Decades After Dollyby Pete Shanks, Biopolitical TimesJuly 12th, 201620 years after the first cloned mammal was born, the US still does not have legal prohibitions on cloned people, or on heritable human genetic modification.

Better Mitochondrial Replacement: But Why? by Ricki Lewis, PLOSJune 9th, 2016As long as there are alternative ways to have healthy children, efforts to manipulate mitochondria, unless directed at developing a treatment for patients, should stop.

Should We Genetically Modify Our Children? [VIDEO][A talk by CGS's Marcy Darnovsky]May 22nd, 2016Marcy Darnovsky unpacks the controversies that have erupted in recent months about how we should - and should not - use gene editing tools, and explores the technical, social, and ethical stakes of these imminent decisions.

Should We Synthesize A Human Genome?by Drew Endy and Laurie Zoloth, DSpace@MITMay 10th, 2016Human genome synthesis could redefine what now joins all of humanity together as a species. Discussions should not take place without open and advance consideration of whether and under what circumstances it is morally right to proceed.

Identity, disability and the genomeby Felicity Boardman, BioNewsApril 11th, 2016The voices of families living with the genetic diseases to be targeted by germline gene editing must be heard. It is their lives and stories that offer the most valuable insights into what we stand to lose.

The Return of Eugenicsby Fraser Nelson, The Spectator [UK]April 2nd, 2016Emerging prenatal genetic screening technologies are creating a "new" eugenics not so ideologically different from that of the past.

Are We Ready For Designer Babies?by Claire Maldarelli, Popular ScienceMarch 21st, 2016The CRISPR gene editing debate can’t just occur within the walls of a conference center. As its power comes into focus, public discussion should proceed in tandem.

CRISPR patent belongs to aliensby Sara Reardon, NatureFebruary 29th, 2016Returning with a new season after over a decade, The X Files uses technologies like CRISPR gene editing to tell stories at the intersection of science, politics, and conspiracy theories.

Harvard’s Eugenics Eraby Adam S. Cohen, Harvard MagazineFebruary 19th, 2016Given that Harvard affiliates will play a large role in genetic engineering, it is important to contemplate how wrong so many people tied to the University got it the first time—and to think hard about how, this time, to get it right.

A Cautious Approach to Mitochondrial Replacementby Françoise Baylis, Impact EthicsFebruary 3rd, 2016While the motivation with mitochondrial replacement (MRT) is distinct from cloning, the transfer technology is the same. MRT can legitimately be seen as a “quiet way station” in which to refine the techniques essential for other genetic interventions (including cloning).

We Are Not Ready to Edit Human Embryos Yetby J. Craig Venter, TimeFebruary 2nd, 2016Due to our insufficient knowledge, the slippery slope to human enhancement, and the global ban on human experimentation, we need to better understand the software of life before we begin re-writing this code.

A Monkey Circles in a Cageby Elliot Hosman, Biopolitical TimesJanuary 29th, 2016Researchers created transgenic monkeys with a gene duplication associated with Rett Syndrome autism in humans, raising concerns of the limits and ethics of using animal models in biomedical research.

GM Insects and Moral Blackmailby Jack Stilgoe and Sarah Hartley, The Guardian [UK]December 17th, 2015Scientists have raised concerns about extreme and potentially existential environmental and security risks, including the extinction of species and/or ecosystems.

No designer babies, but summit calls for cautious research[cites CGS' Marcy Darnovsky]by Lauran Neergaard, APDecember 3rd, 2015The organizing committee argued that gene editing tools are nowhere near ready to use for pregnancy, but that research on embryos can proceed as society continues to grapple with the ethical questions.

Genetically engineered children?by Marcy Darnovsky, The HillDecember 1st, 2015The powerful new gene editing tools now under consideration in D.C. could be used for scientific and medical breakthroughs, or misused to undermine human rights and human equality.

Extreme Genetic Engineering and the Human FutureReclaiming Emerging Biotechnologies
for the Common GoodThe Center for Genetics and Society and Friends of the Earth examine the human applications of synthetic biology. This 50-page report challenges claims that this new set of genetic engineering techniques should be seen as "the future of manufacturing, engineering and medicine."

Gene Therapy: Comeback? Cost-Prohibitive?by Elliot Hosman, Biopolitical TimesNovember 19th, 2015Recent CRISPR news sometimes confuses germline modification - which should be put off limits - and gene therapy, which presents its own set of social and ethical risks to resolve before rushing to market.

Eggs unlimitedby Jennifer Couzin-Frankel, ScienceNovember 6th, 2015OvaScience's fertility procedure appalls some reproductive biologists, and is currently not permitted in the US. But the company is marketing its treatment in Canada and some analysts are upbeat.

Gene Editing and Eugenics (Opinions Vary)by Pete Shanks, Biopolitical TimesOctober 29th, 2015A recent commentary on the UK law allowing clinical use of mitochondrial replacement celebrates it as a benign form of eugenics. Is there such a thing?

The CRISPR Germline Debate: Closed to the Public?by Elliot Hosman, Biopolitical TimesOctober 15th, 2015Recent CRISPR media coverage focuses on hype rather than engaging the ethical and social implications of the groundbreaking technology—even as many call for public inclusion in the genome editing debate.

After Asilomarby Editorial, Nature NewsOctober 14th, 2015Scientist-led conferences are no longer the best way to resolve debates on controversial research, and scientists who wish to self-regulate ignore public outcry at their peril.

CRISPR-Cpf1: Hype by Association by Elliot HosmanOctober 2nd, 2015Amid Nobel Prize predictions for CRISPR-Cas9 research, a new CRISPR associated protein takes the media and science community by storm, even as its utility remains unclear.

Considering CRISPR: Putting a thumb on the scale?by Pete Shanks, Biopolitical TimesSeptember 24th, 2015The National Academies have announced the date for their International Summit on Human Gene Editing. Are some of the organizers trying to predetermine the outcome?

The hidden risks for 'three-person' babiesby Garry Hamilton, Nature NewsSeptember 23rd, 2015"There's a definite possibility you'd see things like disrupted fertility function, various forms of metabolic syndromes and changes in things that relate to metabolism in general."

Pinker's Damn: A Naive Rejection of Controls Over Genetic Engineeringby Stuart Newman, Biopolitical Times guest contributorSeptember 4th, 2015Steven Pinker's credulous optimism concerning human germline modification ignores a record of complicity by some scientists, and appropriation of the work of others, in abuses by industry and government.

The Rhetorical Two-Step: Steven Pinker, CRISPR, and Disabilityby George Estreich, Biopolitical Times guest contributorSeptember 4th, 2015Steven Pinker’s invitation for bioethics to “get out of the way” of the CRISPR revolution typifies a rhetorical pattern: uncritical support for human-focused biotech is paired with a negative view of disability.

CRISPR: The Latest Biotech Hypeby Anne Fausto-Sterling, Boston ReviewAugust 24th, 2015What began with an attempt to build a better yogurt now has journalists speculating about Brave New World scenarios, but the bio-hype relies on a false model of genetic determinism.

Genome Editing: The Age of the Red Pen [Cites CGS]The EconomistAugust 22nd, 2015Germline editing is widely seen as a bourn no ethical traveller should cross. Some scientists want a moratorium on any work aimed at engineering the germ line; others say basic research should continue.

What Will 120 Million CRISPR Dollars Buy?by Elliot Hosman, Biopolitical TimesAugust 13th, 2015As Editas Medicine receives major injection of financing, how will the genetics boom impact funding for public health?